< September 13	September 15 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞Who?¿? 03:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although the former has more articles, the latter seems to be the preferred format for Category:Wikipedians by profession Salsb 23:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One more silly, cliquish, elitist, vanity category, making the site resemble a highschool publication. (Go, Wikis, go, Wikis, rah, rah, rah). 12.73.198.80 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind explaining that comment? How is it at all high-school-publication-like? You do realize that people won't see this unless they're already looking at user pages? ~~ N (t/c) 19:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. ~~ N (t/c) 19:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Sherool 18:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 03:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unneeded, an article Cardinal (bird) exists, and Cardinals points to disambig page Snafflekid 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, what would go in this category? Individual pet cardinals? Seems like overcategorization to me. Nandesuka 04:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How many different types of cardinals are there? The Category:Penguins makes sense as there are so many different types. Perhaps if there were a plethora of cardinal articles the category would be required. Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Actually, there is an existing Category:Cardinalidae for birds in this biological family, which has a few dozen species.--Pharos 19:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 03:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV category name by renaming it Category:Relics of Jesus. "Alleged" is both POV (implying they aren't) and redundant; if they're in this category then clearly someone alleged they were a relic. --G Rutter 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not rename. Or at least not as suggested in the proposal. It is true in some hypertechnical sense that "someone alleged" that Allentown belongs in Category:Cities in Pennsylvania, but that's a consensus allegation. Anything alleged to be a relic of Jesus is believed such by a minority of people, probably a different minority for each such relic. Maybe "Purported" is a better word than "Alleged" though. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for sure, the word alleged is far too loaded. The nomination suggestion is too assertive, as pointed out by Lulu. How about Category:Items claimed to be relics of Jesus? -Splash^talk 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Relics of Jesus. There are no relics of Jesus that aren't seriously doubted, and I think any reasonable person would understand that by their nature relics are always in doubt. A "relic" is a religious concept, and so must to some degree be taken on its own terms. Should we have Category:Alleged Egyptian gods?--Pharos 23:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I had never heard "relic" used in that strictly religious sense, but only in a general archaeological one, i.e.: relic n 1: an antiquity that has survived from the distant past 2: something of sentimental value [syn: keepsake, souvenir, token]. I see that WP gives the religious meaning though. But I could easily imagine a category like Category:Anasazi relics (pots, carts, fabric, etc) that lacked any religious connotation, nor the same "purportedness" that a given shard of pottery was actually Anasazi (of course it's still fallible, but that's different). If something else could point to the religious sense, I'd withdraw my concern; maybe Category:Relics of Jesus (Christian theology)... or better Category:Sacred relics of Jesus. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The religious connotation of "relic" is primary; the occasional conversational meaning is only derived by analogy. I have a little knowledge of archaeology, and I don't think any serious modern archaeologist would call some random artifact a "relic". To speak of "Anasazi relics" wouldn't make any sense unless you specifically meant remains or artifacts believed to hold the spiritual power of past leaders. As for "sacred relics", I think that would be rather redundant.--Pharos 04:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only "primary" in the sense of "originary", perhaps. Several dictionaries I checked (including the one quoted above) were unaware of this "primary" definition. Whatever technical meaning the word relic might have (in certain circles), the large majority of readers will certainly not be aware of it. So overall, I oppose the proposed renaming more strongly as a result of this conversation. (I do agree that the existing name is POV though, so some third option is needed). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I tend to agree with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters that the use of relic here in Wikipedia is overtly religious whereas other references such as dictionaries are devoid of religious connotation. That being said, in either case, relic is probably still a valid word to use since it comes from the Latin for "remains", religious or not. Purported has a truly POV aspect to it, as does alleged--so I don't believe either works. Perhaps Category:Relics attributed to Jesus--at least it only shows association and not derogatory as in alleged and purported meaning doubted. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 05:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read "purported" neutrally (and allegedly only mildly as opinion), rather than claiming the wrongness of the purport (but then, I'm closer to being a lawyer than to being a Catholic :-)). But then, apparently Pharos also reads "relic" immediately in the religious meaning. What we need is clearly something that not only technically means the right thing, but means the right thing to most readers w/o them needing to do a lot of research first. I like RobyWayne's suggestion; I also like my more recent two suggestions ("... (Christian theology)" and "Sacred ..."). This proposed renaming itself moves from asserting the relics are false to asserting they are true; we need to find a middle course. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Individual interpretation is fascinating--and as a Catholic, I feel guilty for speaking on the matter (kidding). Comparing the suggestions thus far, "attributed" and "claimed" may be POV....and "sacred" would imply that it is generally understood that the relics are infact, uh, sacred when it is obvious there isn't a consensus on that. Your other suggestion, Category:Relics of Jesus (Christian theology) removes the implied POV and simply states that these are artifacts/relics attributed to Jesus based on the beliefs of Christian theology. Sorry to ramble on. Consider my vote to rename to Lulu's suggested Category:Relics of Jesus (Christian theology). -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an archaeologist, I see "relic" as primarily religious in tone- I'd use "artefact" to categorise items used in the past. I think that Category:Relics attributed to Jesus is probably the best suggestion we've had so far, if Relics of Jesus is felt as too strong. Relics of Jesus (Christian theology) is a bit clumsy IMO and bizarrely doesn't actually include all the articles in the category (see Shingo, Aomori). --G Rutter 08:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. With religion there are few facts, and pretty much everything is assumed to be alleged. For instance Category:Followers of Jesus refers to those that the Bible reported to have followed Jesus. No one assumes that this category is claiming that Wikipedia endorses the list of followers given in the Bible. - SimonP 05:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 03:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A decision was taken some time ago to rename transport(ation) categories in line with local usage, but it was not implemented. South Africa uses the word transport and has a Department of Transport. Rename category:Transport in South Africa. CalJW 17:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -choster 20:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -Splash^talk 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 03:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially an orientalist classification. I suggest either renaming and reconfiguring it to Category:Transgender cultural forms or Category:Transgender cultures, or merging with Category:Transgender people and behavior.--Pharos 18:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Transgender people and behavior or similar non-Orientalist category. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd favour the merge option over the renaming, as not all articles in the current category are cultures or cultural forms; some are specific individuals (Kaúxuma Núpika) and some are geographic locales (Bugis Street). I do agree, however, that the existing category name is problematic. Bearcat 07:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• For the time being, Keep. We have a lot of information about western transgender people, but only (so far) comparatively general articles about non-western transgender people. Also, it is somewhat tricky to group those people in the cat now with modern western transgender people, since there are obvious differences. For example the fact alone that current western transgender culture evolved around western concepts of sex and gender, while the others obviously did not. Also, cats are not there to satisfy some pc-obsessed editors, but to facilitate readers to find information that belongs together. And I can assure you, that is one group of articles for which there is a common demand. So maybe there is something like a better name, but these articles should be findable together. -- AlexR 08:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd tend towards keep. The topics in Category:Transgender people and behavior have a notably different focus from those in this category. The distinction seems a useful one, so I would not suggest merging them. Maybe a name like Category:Transgender in traditional cultures or Category:Transgender in world cultures would be better? For the moment I'd suggest to keep the category, possibly renamed - if and when more articles are added to this category, it may be worth revisiting this. - David Edgar 16:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as dup/empty. ∞Who?¿? 22:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

empty and duplicates category:Magnet schools in Illinois. Salsb 01:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete empty duplicate. - choster 05:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 03:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

empty and duplicates Category:Leaders of cities in California Salsb 00:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, empty and duplicative. A ((categoryredirect)) might be useful for this. -Splash^talk 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any particularly compelling reason why the existing category is "Leaders of cities..." rather than "Mayors"? I'm fully prepared to vote in favour of merging the categories the other way if there isn't a better reason for it than "just because that's how it was created". Bearcat 07:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. I was unable to find any other List of mayors of States categories..they all appear to be List of mayors of Cities, so this might be something new. I agree with Bearcat, the current non-empty category name doesn't follow the norm anyhow. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 07:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wihle I can't comment on California, here in South Carolina depending on the form of government a city chooses, the city leader might be a mayor elected by the people, a manager hired by the city council, or both. Using the form Leaders of cities in Foo thus allows for all the subcats of Category:Leaders of cities in the United States to have the same form. Caerwine 09:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thanks, Caerwine! That makes sense to me now :-) -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 16:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah. You know, I've never encountered a city that had just a manager; IME, cities that have a city manager still have an elected mayor above that. But I'm willing to go with deleting the mayors category; you'd know more about American city politics than I do. Bearcat 18:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 03:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

apparent mistake:"Please delete this category if you see it outside the sandbox."

• Salsb 00:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as its creator requests its deletion. -- Reinyday, 07:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as empty and unused, an anon created the cat, unless that was the nom not logged in. ∞Who?¿? 22:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.